Probably one of the few occasions where it would take longer to watch the movies than read the book
shareI didn't really mind that.
"Just between the two of us, it's mostly for Fluttershy."-Discord
But did it have to be that long? Absolutely not.
-------------------------------------
OCD predator: www.goo.gl/0avZjB
No it didn't, but I'll take as much Middle Earth as they're willing to give. I loved all 3 Hobbit movies.
share[deleted]
I loved the lord of the rings trilogy, but I could barely makevit through the first film. It is needlessly long and drawn out and padded out with things that don't matter. It seems like the action scenes are far more over the top and it makes it silly and they weren't even exciting I was just bored. The hobbit should have just been one 3 hour film or even two films.
shareLol, never realized it before but that's so true.
share[deleted]
The films would have been much better if they'd been limited to a 2-4 hour running time.
It doesn't mean they would have been great or even good, but a shorter running time would have meant a faster pace, fewer plot lines, and less self-indulgent rambling.
The Hobbit should have been a two hour film, focused solely on Bilbo and his adventure, lighter in tone. These bloated, violent works of fan fiction were hard to sit through. There were occasional moments which suggested what could have been - notably Bilbo's meeting with Gollum and conversation with Smaug - but this was a project motivated purely by greed.
share